[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 792-793]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not read his article today in 
the New York Times, but I congratulate former Secretary Robert Reich 
for a piece he wrote. I have only had it summarized, but he raises 
questions about this budget the President submitted. Without having 
even read the piece, I think I understand his framework.
  I say to the administration and to Democrats, I find a little 
unbelievable, with the economy booming and such flush economic times, 
when one actually looks ahead over the next decade, the nonmilitary 
discretionary spending and where we are going to be making cuts. I hear 
the Democrats talking about how we will reduce the debt, but I hear 
precious little about the investment.
  What I worry about is a disconnect between the words we speak and the 
budgets we present. The President said he had a budget that was all 
about making sure there would be health care coverage for every 
citizen, that he had a budget which would be about ending child poverty 
in America, that he had a budget which would be about making sure every 
child would come to kindergarten ready and able to learn, that he had a 
budget which would provide economic security for senior citizens. But 
looking at the investment in this budget, it is not there. I worry 
about that.
  I think one of the reasons people become disillusioned is that they 
think they will make a difference. I gave an example today at our 
luncheon meeting. My parents both had Parkinson's disease. We hear 
discussion that there will be economic security for senior citizens, 
there will be a commitment to long-term care, and then we see a tax 
credit that amounts to a particular amount of money; maybe for an 
individual family it would be $2,000 a year. For a family faced with 
long-term care needs, trying to figure out a way of staying at home and 
to have people help one stay at home, $2,000 a year is not going to do 
it. It is not going to even come close.
  I am troubled sometimes to hear my Senate colleagues, whom I love, 
taking the position that discretionary spending is actually staying 
below the cost of living. We are really keeping it down. We are adding 
no new dollars.
  But why is that good if, in the first place, some of our spending--I 
will say that, or investment--is inadequate? We should be a major 
player in pre-K, pre-kindergarten. That is where the Federal Government 
can make the biggest difference, getting the money and the resources 
down to the communities and neighborhoods so we can make a commitment 
to early childhood development, so we can make sure the men and women 
who want to work in this field are professionals who get decent 
salaries, rather than getting paid $7 an hour with no health care 
benefits; making sure families can afford this if both parents work or 
a single parent works; making sure this child care is not custodial but 
it is developmental and really helps children. We are going to have to 
spend a lot of money. It cannot be done on the cheap.
  We are going to have to dig into our pockets and make an investment. 
With all due respect, I appreciate some money for refundable child care 
tax credits, but when I look at this overall budget, the investment is 
not there. I am glad we are putting more money into Head Start, but we 
are not putting in anywhere near enough money to make sure every child 
who could benefit from Head Start will be able to benefit. We are 
certainly not putting the investment into affordable child care.

[[Page 793]]

  I would argue the most important national goal for our country would 
be to make sure all children--no matter income or color of skin or 
rural or urban or boy or girl, by the time they go to kindergarten, 
through a combination of public sector investment, private sector help, 
volunteers--have been read to widely, all these children know the 
alphabet and know colors and shapes and sizes, and they know how to 
spell their name and they have been challenged and there have been 
people to nurture them and to support them.
  We are not doing that. So I say to the Chair--he is a Republican--I 
am actually being more critical of Democrats. I am starting to think 
the policy debate goes like this. Republicans say when it comes to the 
most pressing issues of working families' lives, like affordable child 
care, the President says we want health care coverage for citizens--but 
this budget does not provide that. It does not take us anywhere near 
universal health care coverage. So Republicans say universal health 
care coverage, affordable child care, investment in children--listen, 
when it comes to these issues, there is not that much the Government 
can or should do.
  I understand that. That is a legitimate ideology or point of view. 
Although, frankly, I think it works best for people who own their own 
large corporations and are wealthy. I don't think it works for most of 
the people.
  The President says: No, we care about children. We are going to 
invest in children. We are going to have universal health care 
coverage. We are going to have economic security for the elderly. We 
are going to make sure no child is in poverty. But then what we say is: 
But, politically, we cannot make the investment because then it will 
look as if we are spending too much. In which case, frankly, the 
differences between the two parties don't make a heck of a lot of 
difference to a lot of our most vulnerable citizens.
  So I wanted to come to the floor, first of all, to congratulate 
former Secretary Bob Reich for raising questions about the priorities 
of the President's budget and all the money that is being put into debt 
reduction. You can and should put some money into debt reduction. But 
do you know what else? It would seem to me we also want to make sure we 
do well for children right now. In the next century, we are going to be 
asking them to carry an awful lot on their shoulders. We know there are 
a lot of children we are not doing very well by. My question is, in the 
words of Rabbi Hillel, his third century admonition: ``If not now, 
when?''
  If we Democrats do not start speaking up for children and talk about 
the need to invest in children and to invest in pre-K and get it right 
by way of developmental child care--which should be huge, it should be 
all over the country and there should be resources--if we do not speak 
up for children, Democrats, and for investment in early childhood 
education, then who will?
  ``If not now, when?''
  I think I have run out of time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murkowski). The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________